JUDGMENT K.A. Swami, J.—At the stage of admission the respondents are notified. Accordingly, they have put in appearance through their respective counsel. 2. As the appeal involves only one question, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 3. This appeal is preferred against the order dated October 3, 1988 passed in Writ Petition No. 16789/1987. 4. The appellant was the second respondent in the writ petition. The first respondent was the petitioner. First respondent is Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union by its General Secretary. In the writ petition the union sought for quashing the order/endorsement dated June 30, 1987 bearing No. L-12011/17/86-D : IV(A) issued by the Government of India produced as Annexure-C. 4.1. In respect of the claim made by the employees of Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union for payment of higher percentage of bonus for the accounting year 1981, the Bank requested the Central Government to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore. The Central Government by the aforesaid endorsement stated that the subject-matter of the Industrial Dispute was covered under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, therefore, the Central Government was not inclined to refer the dispute for adjudication to a tribunal. 4.2. The learned Single Judge has quashed the endorsement holding that as long as the demand involves a claim for payment of higher percentage of bonus for the accounting year 1981, there will be a dispute falling under the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, there is no justification for refusing to make a reference. The learned Single Judge has also negatived the contention raised by the appellant that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the substantial portion of the dispute has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras, therefore, it is the High Court of Madras which alone has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution; that in addition to this the Head Office of the Bank is situated in Tamil Nadu and majority of the employees of the appellant are from Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed and the impugned endorsement has been directed to make a reference. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed and the impugned endorsement has been directed to make a reference. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, it is stated that the Central Government has already made a reference to the Labour Court and thereafter it has been transferred to Madras Labour Court. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of first respondent that as the reference has already been made, the appellant is not entitled to any relief in this appeal without challenging the order of reference. 5.1. It is not possible to accept this contention. The reference is made pursuant to the order under appeal. The fact is that the reference has been made, the right of appeal is not affected and if the order under appeal is not sustained the reference automatically falls. Hence, the contention of the first appellant in this regard is rejected. 5.2. However, having regard to the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant the point that arises for consideration is as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant the relief sought for. 5.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the substantial portion of the dispute has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as it has arisen in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is the High Court of Madras which has the jurisdiction. Whether or not the High Court of Madras has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the subject-matter in question is not a matter for consideration by this Court, and as such it need not be gone into. 5.4. The question for consideration is whether in the light of the provisions contained in sub-Article (2) of the Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petition can be entertained and the relief sought for can be granted. Article 226(2) read thus : "Article 226(2). 5.4. The question for consideration is whether in the light of the provisions contained in sub-Article (2) of the Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petition can be entertained and the relief sought for can be granted. Article 226(2) read thus : "Article 226(2). The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." The facts necessary for the purpose of determining whether wholly or in part the cause of action has arisen within the territories over which the jurisdiction of this Court extends, are no more in dispute. The jurisdiction of this Court extends over the territories which comprise in the State of Karnataka. The dispute in question relates to the payment of higher bonus to the ex-employees of the appellant for the accounting year 1981. It is not in dispute that there are nine branches of the bank in the State of Karnataka. It is also not in dispute that the higher payment of bonus involved in the dispute also covers the employees who are serving in the branch offices of the Bank in Karnataka. Therefore a section of the employees who are serving in the State of Karnataka are also claiming that they are entitled to higher payment of bonus. As such a part of the cause of action has arisen in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. In the light of the provisions contained in sub-Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution the contention based upon the various decisions in The Management of Indian Cable Co., Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Its Workmen, (1962) 1 LLJ 409 SC and Workmen of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. In the light of the provisions contained in sub-Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution the contention based upon the various decisions in The Management of Indian Cable Co., Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Its Workmen, (1962) 1 LLJ 409 SC and Workmen of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1040 , that it is that High Court within whose jurisdiction the substantial dispute has arisen alone has the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has to be rejected. It is accordingly, rejected. In the light of Article 226(2) of the Constitution the aforesaid decisions are not relevant, as the same cannot be held to have any bearing on the point in issue, in view of the provisions contained in Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The point has to be decided only with reference to the wordings contained in Article 226(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to consider in detail the aforesaid decisions on which the reliance is placed by Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant. 5.5. A similar question arose in D. Ramesh Vs. Government of India, 1990 I LLJ 476, in which one of the points raised for determination was "whether any part of the cause of action relating to the relief sought for by the petitioner had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court." It was held thus : (pp. 470-480) "8. The contention of the respondents is that the 2nd respondent is situated at Delhi and the petitioner commenced his service at Delhi and tended his resignation at Delhi and it was accepted at Delhi, therefore, no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the petition suffers from misconception of cause of action for the relief sought for by the petitioner. In this case the petitioner sought for payment of gratuity which according to the Gratuity Regulations has to be determined on the basis of the entire period of service. If the petitioner had not rendered any part of his service in the State of Karnataka probably the contention would have been accepted. The petitioner admittedly served at Bangalore at the Branch office of the 2nd respondent during the period from September, 1976 to September, 1979 as Branch Manager. If the petitioner had not rendered any part of his service in the State of Karnataka probably the contention would have been accepted. The petitioner admittedly served at Bangalore at the Branch office of the 2nd respondent during the period from September, 1976 to September, 1979 as Branch Manager. Under the Gratuity Regulations, an Officer above the rank of the Deputy Marketing Manager Grade II who has put in a service of not less than 5 years including the service rendered by him with the previous employer in a similar capacity is entitled to the payment of gratuity. The amount of gratuity is calculated as per Regulation No. 5 which provides that an eligible person shall, on his retirement, be granted Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity equal to one-fourth of his emoluments for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service or part thereof subject to a maximum of 16 1/2 times of the emoluments. That being so, the period of service rendered by him at the Bangalore office becomes necessarily an integral part of the qualifying service for payment of gratuity and that has got to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the gratuity. That being so, part of the cause of action has taken place within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence, the contention of the respondents that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court cannot at all be accepted. The fact that the petitioner tendered his resignation at Delhi and it was accepted at Delhi and he joined the service at Delhi are not the only determining factors. Cause of action has to be construed with reference to the relief sought and the facts necessary for the purpose of granting the relief sought, for, cause of action is nothing but a bundle of facts necessary for the purpose of granting the relief. These vital facts have to be considered as forming part of the cause of action. Therefore, when each completed period of six months qualifies for gratuity, the service rendered at a place for more than six months will become necessarily a part of the cause of action. Admittedly, the petitioner had rendered more than six months at Bangalore. Hence, I am of the view that part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner had rendered more than six months at Bangalore. Hence, I am of the view that part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, Point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative." 6. We are of the view that the deciding factor is as to whether the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the jurisdiction of a High Court is relevant and not as to whether the substantial part of the cause of action has arisen or not. If it is held that it is the substantial part of the cause of action that determines the jurisdiction of a High Court it would be virtually ignoring the wordings contained in sub-article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution which is impermissible. 7. For the reasons stated above we answer the point raised for determination in the affirmative. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.